Friday, April 28, 2017

MEANWHILE…IN FRANCE… ~ hehe IS Mr. Globaloney geet~in his ass handed 2 em ... seems like ALL over this Planet (& maybe Off as well ?) emmmmmmm ???Oops

By now you've probably heard: politics in France has turned a very
bizarre corner, for the mainline parties, and their candidates, hardly
made an impression. Instead, Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen are
headed to a runoff election on May 7th. One poll that I saw had M.
Macron winning with 23.9% of the votes, with Mm. Le Pen trailing closely
with 21.4% of the votes. Fillon, Melenchon, Hamon came in at 19.9,
19.6, and 6.3% respectively. Here's the way it looks to the U.K.'s The Guardian:

Notably,
neither Macron nor Le Pen together get a clear majority, but,
interestingly enough, neither do the "mainline" candidates, who fell by
the wayside. What this means in effect is that whether or not Macron or
Le Pen win, they will have to govern either with each other, or by
reaching out to those parties led in the last round of elections by
Fillon, Melenchon & Co. And that will make governance difficult. As
all of this has been going on, I've been receiving a steady trickle of
emails from members of this website who live in France, who inform me
that many of the same tricks we saw applied in the previous US election
have also been rolled out in France: pro-Le Pen comments are censored on
social media, pro-EU/globaloney articles are pushed, &c. In spite
of this, Le Pen has advanced to round two: the mainline candidates did
not.

The question is, why?

In
doing a little research for this blog, I came across the following
article from Global Research News(copy and paste in your browser:

This
article is well worth pondering at length, but I want to draw attention
to certain statements critical of the traditional right-left divide,
and why French politics looks so peculiar now. Consider, first, the
critique of the right:

The
upshot is that Fillon’s coherent pro-capitalist policy is not exactly
what the dominant globalizing elite prefers. The “center left” is their
clear political choice since Tony Blair and Bill Clinton revised the
agendas of their respective parties. The center left emphasis on human
rights (especially in faraway countries targeted for regime change) and
ethnic diversity at home fits the long-term globalist aims of erasing
national borders, to allow unrestricted free movement of capital.
Traditional patriotic conservatism, represented by Fillon, does not
altogether correspond to the international adventurism of globalization.

And now the left:

As
the traditional left goal of economic equality was abandoned, it was
superseded by emphatic allegiance to “human rights”, which is now taught
in school as a veritable religion. The vague notion of human rights was
somehow associated with the “free movement” of everything and
everybody. Indeed the official EU dogma is protection of “free
movement”: free movement of goods, people, labor and (last but certainly
not least) capital. These “four freedoms” in practice transform the
nation from a political society into a financial market, an investment
opportunity, run by a bureaucracy of supposed experts. In this way, the
European Union has become the vanguard experiment in transforming the
world into a single capitalist market.

The
French left bought heavily into this ideal, partly because it
deceptively echoed the old leftist ideal of “internationalism” (whereas
capital has always been incomparably more “international” than workers),
and partly due to the simplistic idea that “nationalism” is the sole
cause of wars. More fundamental and complex causes of war are ignored.

For
a long time, the left has complained about job loss, declining living
standards, delocalization or closure of profitable industries, without
recognizing that these unpopular results are caused by EU requirements.
EU directives and regulations increasingly undermine the French model of
redistribution through public services, and are now threatening to wipe
them out altogether – either because “the government is bankrupt” or
because of EU competition rules prohibit countries from taking measures
to preserve their key industries or their agriculture.

Add to this the following:

Meanwhile,
it has become more and more obvious that EU monetarist policy based on
the common currency, the euro, creates neither growth nor jobs as
promised but destroys both. Unable to control its own currency, obliged
to borrow from private banks, and to pay them interest, France is more
and more in debt, its industry is disappearing and its farmers are
committing suicide, on the average of one every other day. The left has
ended up in an impossible position: unswervingly loyal to the EU while
calling for policies that are impossible under EU rules governing
competition, free movement, deregulation, budgetary restraints, and
countless other regulations produced by an opaque bureaucracy and
ratified by a virtually powerless European Parliament, all under the
influence of an army of lobbyists.

Benoit
Hamon remains firmly stuck on the horns of the left’s fatal dilemma:
determination to be “socialist”, or rather, social democratic, and
passionate loyalty to “Europe”. While insisting on social policies that
cannot possibly be carried out with the euro as currency and according
to EU rules, Hamon still proclaims loyalty to “Europe”. He parrots the
EU’s made-in-Washington foreign policy, demanding that “Assad must go”
and ranting against Putin and Russia.

And finally, this comment about Melenchon and Le Pen:

A
most remarkable feature of this campaign is great similarity between
the two candidates said to represent “the far left”, Mélenchon, and “the
far right”, Marine Le Pen. Both speak of leaving the euro. Both vow to
negotiate with the EU to get better treaty terms for France. Both
advocate social policies to benefit workers and low income people. Both
want to normalize relations with Russia. Both want to leave NATO, or at
least its military command. Both defend national sovereignty, and can
thus be described as “sovereignists”.

The
only big difference between them is on immigration, an issue that
arouses so much emotion that it is hard to discuss sensibly. Those who
oppose immigration are accused of “fascism”, those who favor immigration
are accused of wanting to destroy the nation’s identity by flooding it
with inassimilable foreigners.

So
where's my daily dose of speculation? A few months ago I predicted that
even if Marine Le Pen does not win this bid for the French Presidency,
the issues driving her and her party simply will not go away, especially
if Mr. Globaloney continues to pursue the same policies with the same
playbook, and to ignore the real issue.That issue, I suspect, is much deeper than even Global Research understands, for the phenomenon is not political, it is cultural and civilizational,
and it is, perhaps, not surprising at all that it should be France, and
Britain (with the Brexit vote) where we see, if not the strongest
opposition to Mr. Globaloney, then at least the most articulate and
vocal, for those two nations are, to put it succinctly, the two oldest
nation-states in the western world. They represent, so to speak, the
core countries of modern western culture: Britain spread Anglo-Saxon
jurisprudence and associated cultural institutions throughout the world
via the British Empire. In doing so, it also put an end to many
practices we would now consider barbaric. And yes, I realize in stating
that I have taken a very unpopular view. (If you want to hear
the politically correct view, attend an American university.) France,
similarly, spread French law and jurisprudence and institutions
throughout Europe during the Napoleonic era, which gave rise to the
national aspirations of Italy and Germany and helped pave the way for
their national unifications in the 19th century.

Why
is this distinction between politics and culture important? It's very
simple: if what is driving the Trump train, or the Brexit vote, or, now,
the upheavals in French politics, is cultural and not
political, then the phenomenon is not going to go away very quickly,
nor very quietly, no matter what the politicians do or do not do.

The
first politician in the West that truly understands this, and can
articulate the cultural vision and aspect of the problem, wins. Why?
Because Mr. Globaloney has no real innate sense of culture. He has to buy
it, but does not understand it, nor view himself as belonging to any
cultural tradition(except a modern one no older than a century or
century and a half). He endows modernist ugliness and promotes it at
every turn (think David Rockefailure here, folks, and his "taste" in
modern "art"); and people are turning from ugliness.

As
for France, this will, indeed, be an election to watch, and I confess
some personal emotional involvement; my paternal grandmother was French;
I have my great-grandfather's (her father's) French prayer book; French
composers - Saint-Saens, Rameau, Couperin, and so on - and musicians
have enriched my personal life; when I studied organ, I played an
edition of J.S. Bach's organ music edited and prepared by the grand
master of French organists (Charles-Marie Widor), and so on. So I watch
what goes on there with great personal feeling, because I do not want
France to become something one can only read about in history books,
another victim of Mr. Globaloney's hatred of and war on all things of
beauty belonging to western culture and tradition. https://gizadeathstar.com/2017/04/meanwhile-in-france/